Black Holes Don't Exist

No of course. Nobody is saying that and I'm not sure what would make you think so.

The point rather is that observational evidence of super-dense objects in our galaxy shows that there are objects extremely like black holes in existence. However there is still some ambiguity in the observations and they might simply be very very dense stars. There are a couple of features of the observed objects (their high rate of rotation for example, which would rip a star apart) which make this unlikely, but it still might be the case.

So for the past two/three decades people have gone back to the mathematics to see if the equations themselves predict black holes or not. The Black Holes originally discovered in General Relativity between 1915-1950 are highly symmetric objects that seemed to require very special conditions to exist, too special to be likely to occur in reality.

In the 1960s however Hawking and Penrose discovered that General Relativity predicts that black holes form under generic conditions, even the typical collapse of a star.

However their proof approximates matter as completely classical, even though we know matter is quantum mechanical.

Since then, there have been papers trying to investigate if black holes still form even when the matter is treated as quantum mechanical.

Since the analysis is so difficult, nobody has been able to completely prove if black holes still form or not. Although the evidence points to the fact that they do.

The authors of this paper went further with the analysis of one aspect of stellar collapse with quantum matter than previous papers. They very accurately modeled the vacuum back-reaction. This is where a stream of particles are created from nothing due to the stars distortion of spacetime changing the definition of "empty"*. These extra particles seem to halt the collapse, although I know that there are approximations in the authors' calculations that others have questioned, so their paper isn't conclusive. Also note that they only accurately modeled one aspect of quantum matter (the vacuum back-reaction).

*Yes, distorting spacetime actually changes the meaning of "empty" or "devoid of mass-energy". A quantum field derives its definition of empty/vacuum/void from the spacetime around it. So initially the quantum field is in some state and it "queries" the spacetime as to the physical content of its state. The spacetime "returns" the result "that's a vacuum state". However if the spacetime changes it might return "That's a state of ten particles".

The quantum field and its state/confirguration haven't changed, just their value. Sort of like a Microsoft office block might just sit there unchanged, but its value can increase due to stock fluctuations. The quantum field in the same state is suddenly "worth" more particles and hence they exist. I want to stress they are not created from pre-existing energy.

Their theories are restricted by their definition and conclusions about the nature of matter and its existence. They try to find a model of matter that has no greater contexts than itself, ie, it is self existent. Now while nature displays such an economy that it seems like it is existing by itself, it is dependent on greater contexts of energy than itself.

Everything you have said here is roughly correct. Current models of physics model matter as containing all the information necessary to understand its own development over time. For example to know how a ball falls, I need only information on the ball's mass, position, speed and the average drag in the air. Nothing completely external to the ball and the air atoms it is in contact with are needed.
This is a restriction as you said in the sense that more general ideas might include other influences. So sure.

Although I will say in modern physics, spacetime itself is also dynamic and evolving and influences matter, so matter is not totally self-determined.

There is a lot more to what we see, in that which cannot be seen.

I'm sure there are more things left to find, yes.

If you put matter into the context of a supporting power or background of forces then, you don't have to try and make its own functions account for its behaviors.

Again, yes. Almost by definition, if matter's behavior is not totally determined by itself, then it won't have to completely account for its own behaviour. Fine.

But because we have not discovered these background forces, we rely on making up extreme situations like black holes to balance out the expectations.

No. This is simply wild speculation on your part. You are essentially saying:
Scientists don't everything, and ignore something external to matter (wink,wink,nudge,nudge, I mean God or the supernatural), but if they did, some things I find weird and unlikely would not be part of their theories.

You see, black holes were not just "made up". Somebody didn't one day say "Hey we need an object that behaves like.......".
General Relativity, the theory of gravity the any GPS system on the planet uses, the one that describes Mercury's orbit with perfect precision, that describes the strange angular momentum objects pick up near the Earth (known as frame dragging), this theory predicts black holes.

They were not "made up" but discovered as a prediction of General Relativity, which seems to be completely correct in its description of gravity so far, extremely so.

Can you give concrete reasons as to why you think General Relativity would be correct about the orbits of planets, the bending of light, frame-dragging, but it would be false in this case. What is it that the theory assumes, that invalidates black holes, but does not affect its other predictions?

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Personally I have never believed in GR, SR etc, because they are without any greater context. But the effects of space time bending are real and rightly predicted as well as observed.

This is interesting. You believe that spacetime does bend and that this effect is real, but you do not believe in GR? Do you mean you do not believe it is the whole story or something else?
(If that is the case, well GR itself doesn't claim to be the whole story and certainly isn't the whole story, so nothing is wrong here)

The rest of your post is closer to modern physics than you think. It will take me a little while to compose a response if you don't mind.

We associate mass and gravity, and a space time bend, but I do not believe they are caused by each other

In modern physics they don't "cause" each other either. One could say mass causes spacetime to curve (although this is not definitive as it is possible to view relativity as just describing an "eternal" four-dimensional spacetime, so there isn't really "causes" as such) but spacetime curvature does not cause mass.

rather that all of these are caused by a difference in the state of the background force which also helps to make up and produce matter and all the other factors mentioned.

There is not experimental evidence of such a force. The end.

Not just matter, but anti matter and dark matter as well.

In modern physics, antimatter and dark matter interact with and cause spacetime curvature just as much as normal matter.

It is slowly dawning on some scientists that the universe has much more power behind it than revealed in matter, and that matter is only a small expression compared to that energy. So rather than seeing the universe as empty space with a few stars, it is actually full of energy or elements of some type, and the stars are the lower points of energy in that fabric.

This is the part that I was referring to when I said your post is closer to modern physics than you think.

There is something "behind" matter in modern physics and that is the quantum fields. A particle itself is nothing more than a localised excitation of these fields. The universe is indeed "full" of these fields and they do indeed span the space between stars, with the stars themselves being typically low energy excitations of these fields, like most conventional matter.

That said, quantum fields are extremely complicated objects, they are not "energy" or "elements". As I've said before on these forums, the everyday object they most closely resemble is a spring mattress.

So we can conclude that matter is a result of energy which has settled down. That settled down state causes a difference with its highly energized environment in the universe. If we accept that experimentally, then we can see stars not needing to derive their energy from wood, candles, electricity or atomic explosions, or whatever is used as an energy source for man in the future, but simply from the difference in the state of power between matter and the rest of the universe, which is what energy is, a difference which calls for an action to equalize. It's like putting a frozen potato chip into hot oil, there is a reaction.

Matter is a result of quantum fields being excited locally, but not generally. That is, if a small part of the field in one region is energetic, we get a particle. If the whole field were full of energy we'd get what are known as field states, which don't really resemble matter.

Stars derive their power from nuclear fusion, this is a demonstrated fact, just google it.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Those forces were anciently named the waters and the light.

What ancient society believed this?

Similar to aether… wasn’t that a scaler field?

No, the aether was not a scalar field.

In the ancient greek version it wasn't specified enough to know what type of field it could be, or if it was a field.

The Aether of the 19th century couldn't be a scalar, since it was meant to carry the Electric and Magnetic fields which are vectors. It also wasn't a field, since that is exactly the idea it aimed to replace/make unnecessary.

Or active imagination…

A vague sentence with no content, do you have a specific criticism? You can say silly leading sentences like this with anything.

Aristotle didn't believe in "the Waters and the Light". He thought matter was composed of the four classical Greek elements obeying what we call Aristotlean physics and the Aether obeying another set of laws he never specified.

My apology, participants never use vague language in this forum. This is particularly true of your language. i do not wish to shock anyone.

Thanks for the compliment, but I'd like to know what is your criticism of the idea of quantum fields?

But the Higgs field is scaler and just as arbitrary as far as aethers go. Greeks did not know about electric and magnetic fields.

How is the Higg's field arbitrary?

Three things:
(a) The 19th century Aether was not arbitrary, there was a solid reason to introduce it, namely to explain how Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics seem to produce results independent of a reference frame. Their explanation was that the equations are actually the equations of electromagnetism in the frame of a fluid they called the Aether. They were wrong, Maxwell's equations are frame independent due to relativity, but it wasn't an arbitrary idea.
(b) There are specific reasons for introducing the Higgs' boson. Which I see from my post history I have explained to you before. So rather than repeat them, could you tell me why you find them lacking.
(c) Quantum Fields have very different behaviour to Aether models. Specifically their probabilistic nature.

I know the Greeks did not know about electric and magnetic fields, that is why I prefaced it with "The Aether of the 19th century". Still though the Greek Aether was not a scalar.

Do you know what a scalar field is?

In regards to the question of mass, how many more mechanisms are there besides the Higgs mechanism (those for gaguge bosons)?

For mass generation the standard model has two mechanisms:
(a) The Higgs Mechanism
(b) The potential energy of Strong Force interactions. For example the protons mass is 99% the potential energy of the strong force between the quarks. The internal quarks themselves contribute very little mass.

I hope you are not implying anything other than a local influence of field theory.

No, quantum fields obey local interactions.

Scaling the field theory is fraught with unsolvable problems.

What do you mean by scaling the theory?

My objections remain the same regarding all pervasive fields (fields that take on a constant value everywhere). Nothing new under the sun, the original concept coming from the ancients…

Quantum fields do not take on a constant value everywhere. In fact due to being quantum mechanical, they don't take on definitive values. You are thinking of quantum fields as if they were classical objects.

The addition of quantum mechanics makes quantum fields completely unlike any "ancient" model.

Only certain categories of matter. I would assume you do not refer to most normal matter.

No, all normal matter is an excitation of sets of quantum fields.

In my opinion QFT has no inroads into matter.

Aright here is my only real question to you. Quantum field theory predicts (due to instanton states and anomalies) that the mass of the eta prime meson is 957.67 MeV. This is exactly the mass found in particle accelerators for the eta prime meson.

So my questions are:
(a) If quantum field theory is incorrect or inaccurate, why does it get this mass correct?
(b) Do you have a theory besides quantum field theory which produces an accurate mass for the eta prime?

We could cover these one at a time, but I am sure you are familiar with them in detail (things like anti-matter).

Quantum field theory predicts anti-matter, so I don't understand how it makes no inroads into anti-matter.

Forces like gravity… You know all the big stuff.

Why does quantum field theory need to describe everything in order to be correct? Yes, it doesn't describe gravity, but is it incorrect in what it does describe?
(Photosynthesis is not a failed theory because it doesn't describe animal digestion)

Edited by Son Goku, : Spelling

(b) Strong force interactions are as of yet not fully described.

Quantum Chromodynamics fully describes the strong force, what aspects does it not describe in your opinion?

Let me make this simple, if quantum field theory is speculation and false, then you explain to me why the eta prime has a mass of 957.67 MeV?

Or explain how quantum field theory, despite being incorrect speculation in your opinion, manages to obtain that number.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

You are conflating description with a demonstration of underlying axioms. Errors are prevalent in many of its calculations requiring normalization to the particular scale it is being used.

My area of research is quantum chromodynamics, can you give me an example of a calculation with errors requiring normalisation to a scale?

Very good, now describe the gravitational field particle relationship.

I never claimed QFT describes gravity, so why would I describe it? Secondly nobody knows how gravity works on a quantum scale, so I couldn't. I can't come up with quantum gravity on a forum post.

What I am arguing against is your claim that QFT is ignorant speculation and that its assumptions have not being demonstrated. I disagree with this, because QFT seems to describe matter well. Particularly the quantum field theory known as the Standard Model. If QFT is speculation how does it get the correct mass for the eta prime?

Could you just answer the question in bold, instead of asking me to do something nobody knows, nor that I ever claimed was possible?

QFT theory must yield to Relativity in the macro universe, that being the better way to understanding.

QFT and Relativity are compatible, i.e. QFT does yield to relativity, (although I could have your meaning of yield wrong) it's just that general relativity is not quantum mechanical.
Quantum Fields can bend and curve spacetime under General Relativity without the theory breaking or anything going wrong mathematically. In fact this is the current theory of physics:
The standard model quantum field theory (with its fourteen fields) living in four dimensional spacetime with the stress-energy of the fields distorting the spacetime as described by general relativity.

Quantum gravity refers to any theory where spacetime/gravity itself is quantum mechanical. In current theories of physics spacetime/gravity is classical. Quantum Fields however interact perfectly well with classical spacetime.

I am sorry for your discomfort when someone portrays a demurral of skepticism, QFT being a life’s profession. Discomfort is a normal reaction to such.

There is no discomfort, for the same reason as always on this forum:
You are not saying anything detailed, simply constantly repeating: Maybe you guys are wrong

Yes, "maybe" conventional science is wrong about particle physics. You have to actual state something. For example:

Although QFT will never provide a explanation for unpredicted nuances, like the production of mesons when probing the strong force (determined from observations).

Can you explicitly say what this is. Again I have done research into the Strong Nuclear force and I am not aware of this problem. Could you say what mesons in what probings/experiments?

Maybe when you actually explicitly state a problem, I might get uncomfortable and I can avail of your free psychoanalysis. Until then, I'm waiting for you to actually state a problem.

Could you just answer the question in bold, instead of asking me to do something nobody knows, nor that I ever claimed was possible? It is that underlying symmetry and the implication thereof.

So the reason that the eta prime has a mass of 957.67 MeV is because of:
"The underlying symmetry and implications there of".

Can you show how an underlying symmetry and its implications leads directly to a mass of 957.67 MeV for the eta prime?

I will be interested to see this, as in conventional physics, that is quantum chromodynamics, the eta prime is unusually heavy explicitly because there is no underlying symmetry associated with it. A phenomena originally known as the U(1) anomaly.

My perspective is an underlying symmetry to the universe, a simple extrapolation from the existence of calculable entities, demonstrates to me the existence of a universal mind. I hope there is an agreement about the preceding statement at some level, either symmetry or God. If one could exist without the other.

Current theoretical knowledge and experimental evidence seem to indicate that most of low energy particle physics (low energy meaning low compared with the energies of the very early universe) is largely (although not entirely) controlled and determined by certain symmetries. There are some aspects not related to symmetry, but by and large the standard model is "mostly" given its structure by symmetries.

To be more detailed, once you supply the basic structure of the Weak Force, that it acts only on left-chirality particles*, as well as some details about how the three forces interact with each other, then the rest of the theory is determined by symmetry.

Low energy gravity as described by General Relativity seems to be unrelated to any symmetry idea.

How much of this persists at higher energies, I have no idea.

You may be describing the magic kingdom here perfectly. Exactly where are the fourteen fields of quantum field theory incorporated in a field equation? You might show how the Higgs field fits into a stress-energy tensor.

Okay, for once I will just answer the question directly.

If is the Higgs field, its complex conjugate, its spacetime derivative and the metric of the spacetime and the Higgs mass, then the Higgs contribution to the stress energy tensor is:

I have retained standard SI units as you have complained about the use of particle physics units before.

Or are you saying if you step back far enough and just assume all matter fits into a particle/field, by reason of tautology, the classical universe is the quantum universe.

No, I am not saying this.

Only at the very small scales. Quantum fields are local (if the particle field hypothesis is even correct).

Why does locality imply they only interact sensibly on small scales? Quantum fields are known to give the correct gravitational fields on large scales, it's actually at small scales that they might be incorrect, although no experiment can probe length scales that small as of 2014.

Here is a particular you might expose here… please do not bore us with in depth opacity. http://www.livescience.com/...cays-standard-model-babar.html now show us your stuff….

So I am to explain this to you and "show my stuff" without going into detail. Fair enough.
The problem you are referring to was later disproved:
http://cds.cern.ch/...d/1456302/files/LHCb-CONF-2012-022.pdf

First there is a underlying symmetry then that symmetry does not apply. This is more like a religion than a religion.

Once again, can you say why it is like a religion? Can you provide an actual argument?
What is it about the U(1) anomaly derivation of the eta prime mass that is "like a religion"?

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Also Assumptions about the Higgs contribution to stress-energy hinges on if that particle is real at all. Trying to get any real contribution from an arbitrary field with a particle of suspicious existence is impossible. It is not provable, thus not science, at best a speculation.

I can understand you saying it is not proved. However, it is provable there are clear predictions by the standard model for what effects the Higg's boson should have. Surely that is provable and hence scientific? Note I am not saying it is proved, just that it is provable.

Like all speculation (especially about the Higgs which is a chain of many speculations) you can get it to work one way or the other mathematically but the proof is impossible.

That is not true. The Higgs properties are constrained by gauge symmetry and triviality bounds. You cannot get it to work "one way or another" a proof of this is to be found in:
Triviality Pursuit: Can Elementary Scalar Particles Exist? - Callaway, David J.E. Phys.Rept. 167 (1988)

There is a free version of the article here:
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~callaway/trivpurs.pdf

What does that mean? is this another case of it is right and wrong?

No. I'm saying QFT seems to give the correct gravitational effects at large scales. We currently don't know about small scales.

I know you could find an objection… Clear as a bell. This is a objection to the earlier finding, maybe it is accurate, maybe it is not. Maybe the entire Standard model is ready for a revamping.

Except all evidence points to it being correct.
The paper above is a more detailed study than the one you cited (much higher statistical certainty) and the original objection has been shown to be a statistical error.

Your statement alone goes against the principle of theory refutation, That being: a theory can never be ‘proved’ only disproved. Also, a theory must be disprovable, unobservable particles and subsequent fields for those particle are unobservable in QFT.

Well isn't it clearly disprovable? (I only used provable because you used it) The standard model predicts clear effects for the Higgs boson related to decays in channels of other particles. If these aren't observed then it is disproved. Isn't that scientific?

You must explain “correct”, least we quibble over quantum gravity.

Correct = What is observed in experiments.

Here isa short summation of the standard model issues:

Okay, this is what I have been looking for.

Virtual particles that are never seen (only determined by their decay products) that makes it a theory that is not disprovable

The standard model does not involve virtual particles. No quantum field theory does. Virtual particles are not a component of quantum field theory, they are a pedagogical device used to describe quantum field theory in popular or undergraduate textbooks.
However they are not really a part of the theory. Quantum field theory does not predict the existence of or involve virtual particles. I can give a few references for this if you want.

undetected supper-symmetric particles

The standard model does not involve super-symmetry. I mean, literally, the standard model is not super-symmetric. This makes me think you don't really know what the standard model is. In fact recent observations, due to not observing super-symmetric partners, have disproved super-symmetry and upheld the standard model.

virtual particles difficult to quantify in general relativity and a calculated vacuum energy for virtual particles is 170 orders of magnitude greater than observed in astronomy.

I gave you a paper in a previous thread that demonstrated this is no longer the case, i.e. that 170 orders of magnitude error is from the 1970s when QFT calculations could not be done as accurately.

Prediction of the location in energy of the Higgs boson was broad and variable

The Higgs mass is an input parameter, same as the electron mass. Now, I too would want a deeper theory to explain why this mass, just as the standard model doesn't explain "why this charge for the electron". However this isn't an unusual problem, it's just that the standard model has input parameters like all other physical theories.

Look, I have no doubt that some sort of assumptions and mathematical patches could be presented in every case.

Well not really.
Two of your objections (virtual particles and supersymmetry) are nothing to do with real problems. Neither are a part of the theory. The first (virtual particles) are just an explanatory device and the other (supersymmetry) as nothing to do with the standard model.

The third (vacuum energy) is just false. People originally couldn't work out the actual value for the standard model, so they used a toy model to approximate it. The toy model is very far off. Years later when the standard model value was computed it was correct.

The fourth problem is a problem, but it is one every theory of physics has, the need for input parameters.

The problem I encounter is that the basic assumption of particle/field for the Higgs is difficult to swallow (no observable particle and a scalar field).

Why is it hard to swallow in the case of the Higgs. The standard model has this particle/field duality for every fundamental particle, like the quarks, the electrons and the neutrino. What is so hard to accept about it in the case of the Higgs? You still haven't said this, i.e. the details on what has always been your main point, the incorrectness of the Higgs model.

The particle/field hypothesis is in affect a “straw man” being presented as evidence and backed by extensile reasoning in complex mathematics.

Then why does it get all the decay rates and interactions of all subatomic particles, the shapes of all mesons and baryons correct?

If particle/field hypothesis were correct, gravity (being the most relevant in the macro universe) would easily demonstrate a particle field relationship.

This is nonsense. For an idea to be correct it doesn't have to apply to everything. This is like saying photosynthesis is incorrect because not everything is a plant. Photosynthesis is correct, it just doesn't apply to everything.

The particle/field idea appears to be correct. The model that particles are excitations of fields (quantum field theory) has produced a theory (the standard model) that correctly predicts all sub-atomic interactions.

General Relativity already says gravity is not a field, even at the classical level. So it seems that the particle/field duality model (quantum field theory) does not apply to gravity. Gravity is not a field, so what? Everything is not a quantum field, so what? How does invalidate the concept for thousands of subatomic particles whose experimentally observed interactions seem to be extremely accurately model by the particle/field concept?

Edited by Son Goku, : Spelling